Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

It's probably rooted in the fact that American commercials shown overseas won't produce any revenue. I despise Hulu because I pay monthly for service and still get commercials...and the interface sucks compared to NetFlix.

Then do what I do--vote with my wallet, and stop paying for Hulu Plus, and stick with Netflix. So I'm a year or two behind--so what? I can watch years and years of a single show, and then do the same with another show. I never run out of stuff to watch and never see a commercial. Why bother with Hulu?

Yeah how about trying "We were ordered to do it by the US government and we can't give you details because a) national security and b) gag order". Seems to work for the government, why can't it work for Google?

Because they've had 2 years to make that argument, and making it now isn't credible?

The developers at my company, who use windows laptops, keep a lot of their code in VisualSVN server and then use eitherAnkhsvn to do the checkout straight into Visual Studio, or TortoiseSVN if you want to be able to right-click in any folder and checkout to that location.

Even 16 episodes for $22.99 is way too much. You think AMC makes that much off cable viewers? No way.

For that kind of price you could get the DVDs. This is why I wait for shows to be on Netflix.

22.99 is for the high-def version; would you consider that an acceptable price for the Blu-ray disks? It's $14.99 for the standard definition. It is a complete rip-off for only 8 episodes, but seems like a decent price for 16.

Does anyone know if there is gold in Fort Knox still? Or is this one of those questions that isn't supposed to be asked or answered? If so, I apologize for asking it, but I'd be enlightened to know anything about this situation.

To try and put in context. As long as the guy had a genuinely difficult/unhelpful time dealing with BA customer service then he's fine. If that isn't true, for example they responded quickly and repeatedly but he ignored it. He shouted and was rude to them immediately on the phone making it impossible for them to capably serve him etc. In those circumstances they would have valid grounds for libel in the UK because what he is saying isn't true. Though BA would never pursue it because it would simply make it a bigger story.

But the word "horrendous" is not a factual word; it has no legal meaning. BA can say "we helped him 15 times and found his bag in 20 minutes and paid him 100 pounds for his trouble", and those are all factual statements that they could (and should, if true) present for their side of the argument in court of public opinion. But "horrendous" is still an opinion and opinions are not libelous, in the United States. Like I said, in the UK things are different, and he probably can be sued for his statement of opinion--but if he is a US citizen then the US will refuse to extradite him for a free speech violation.

His tweet said "their customer service is horrendous." That clearly makes it a matter of opinion, which is protected by free speech laws in the US. However, British laws are much more "protective" of the "victims" of "big meanies" who share their opinions in public.

Nuclear weapons also just "burn" people. They are not used specifically for their fallout either. What's the problem?

The problem is that nuclear weapons cause too much "collateral damage". As in, not only did the military base cease to exist, but the hospital and schools around it are gone, too. Don't forget the orphanage, the retirement home, and the church/synagogue/mosque/etc.